Should the US government institute some sort of forced savings with a wealth fund?

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,367
US
#21
Everyone else.

The 1% can pay for everyone else's retirement! They can live on golden clouds in cities made of chocolate, where everything is free is everyone is happy!

Many today value their recreation and free time over making money. They work sporadically and live at home. Some work "under the table," while some don't work at all. In today's world everybody has to have the same, even if some have earned it while others have not. Another tax simply means a further redistribution of wealth. I know people who work for the local county government. They pay 10% of the earnings toward their retirement fund, a real challenge given all the other deductions from their pay. If they stay in their job long enough, they are rewarded with a nice retirement pay. Nobody I know could afford a 40% retirement deduction.
 
Likes: aggienation
Jul 2016
8,180
USA
#22
Many today value their recreation and free time over making money. They work sporadically and live at home. Some work "under the table," while some don't work at all. In today's world everybody has to have the same, even if some have earned it while others have not. Another tax simply means a further redistribution of wealth. I know people who work for the local county government. They pay 10% of the earnings toward their retirement fund, a real challenge given all the other deductions from their pay. If they stay in their job long enough, they are rewarded with a nice retirement pay. Nobody I know could afford a 40% retirement deduction.
The 40% retirement plan reminds me of my grandparent's generation. They lived through the Depression, didn't really trust banks or societal safety nets at all. They lived very frugally and squirreled away a whole lot of money, allowing them to live well in retirement to the point that Social Security income was what they blew on slot machines on monthly trips to the casinos with the other senior citizens. But during their lives they didn't have the nicest newest most expensive cars, computers, cell phones, and other tech, and they worked their butts off their whole lives.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#23
Basically the idea here is like Singapore's Central Provident Fund, the federal government will take 40 percent of a person's salary, and will put it in a investment fund, that will be invested blue chip stocks or A rated bonds, with a guaranteed minimum rate of return, and you cannot touch this fund until you reach 65, or you need it for medical care, or housing.
In a sense, isn't that what US Social Security was supposed to be? The government takes a certain percentage of your income, and then you get a guaranteed amount when you reach retirement age, which used to be 65. Although is far less than 40%.
 
Jul 2016
8,180
USA
#24
In a sense, isn't that what US Social Security was supposed to be? The government takes a certain percentage of your income, and then you get a guaranteed amount when you reach retirement age, which used to be 65. Although is far less than 40%.
It was never supposed to be anything more than a basic safety net to stop senior citizens from being utterly destitute. It wasn't able to, and can't be the primary retirement method. Besides that, it was designed for senior citizens collecting from 65 onwards in a time when few lived much beyond those years, in 1930 male life expectancy in the US was 58 and women were 62, so far more paid in than collected, and those that did collect didn't generally do so very long. As times changed, and life expectancy increased by decades, senior citizens collected far more than they put it, meaning the next generations were paying for the older ones.

And then the natural thing happened, the piggy bank of the Social Security Trust Fund was raided, like basically every other govt provided retirement fund ever created, to use cold hard cash for other things. So now Social Security is just a tax, and another black hole of social service funding that is paid for by printing money and hoping hyperinflation occurs later down the road, and not right now (but it will come home to roost eventually).
 
Likes: Rodger
Aug 2014
3,814
Australia
#25
My father is worth several million dollars and recently turned 70. He bought his first new car.

FWIW Australia has compulsory retirement savings. Around 8% of our wages are garnished and put towards a superannuation fund. It is more like an enforced 401K rather than Social Security because you only get out what you put into it. In the US, Social Security and Pension Funds guarantee a certain income no matter how much you have contributed to retirement and it is completely unsustainable. Pension funds are collapsing all over the place.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Rodger
Jul 2016
8,180
USA
#26
My father is worth several million dollars and recently turned 70. He bought his first new car.
Relating positive examples of responsibility is evidence of white privilege, a patriarchal one at that, and is a further sign of oppressive reactionary behavior leading to the erosion of society and mankind as a whole.
 
Jan 2019
122
USA
#27
It was never supposed to be anything more than a basic safety net to stop senior citizens from being utterly destitute. It wasn't able to, and can't be the primary retirement method. Besides that, it was designed for senior citizens collecting from 65 onwards in a time when few lived much beyond those years, in 1930 male life expectancy in the US was 58 and women were 62, so far more paid in than collected, and those that did collect didn't generally do so very long. As times changed, and life expectancy increased by decades, senior citizens collected far more than they put it, meaning the next generations were paying for the older ones.

And then the natural thing happened, the piggy bank of the Social Security Trust Fund was raided, like basically every other govt provided retirement fund ever created, to use cold hard cash for other things. So now Social Security is just a tax, and another black hole of social service funding that is paid for by printing money and hoping hyperinflation occurs later down the road, and not right now (but it will come home to roost eventually).
That's something that has worried me, because you're right. Social Security alone can't fund someone through a fruitful retirement. For people with a long road ahead of them, I can't see how you could know how much to put away. I feel like as much as you possibly can would be the right answer. But, should you be feeling your conributions?I only do what my company will match right now. I'm not sure if that's enough. I'm hoping a sense of anxiety about it is enough for me to make the right decisions in the futre.
 
Jul 2016
8,180
USA
#28
That's something that has worried me, because you're right. Social Security alone can't fund someone through a fruitful retirement. For people with a long road ahead of them, I can't see how you could know how much to put away. I feel like as much as you possibly can would be the right answer. But, should you be feeling your conributions?I only do what my company will match right now. I'm not sure if that's enough.
It probably wont be. My 401k I do through work, and the IRA on the side, wont be enough. But I guess there is always other options. We can institute something like Ättestupa, jump off of cliffs at the age of 65, to avoid being a strain on the younger productive members of society. Sad to say, there isn't enough money in the world to fund every old person, most utterly reliant on expensive pharmaceuticals and constant medical care, to include 24/7 nursing. Not that it would happen, we live in democratic societies, the same reason Social Security won't ever be properly reformed is because old people vote in record numbers, and young people barely do. They'll keep voting themselves more benefits, screw the young!
 
#29
Actually, I consider skilled-laborers ( plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc.) to be in the middleclass. They have fairly good incomes, and usually can afford to buy a house, buy a car, raise a family, and take a modest annual vacation once in awhile. By working-class, I'm referring to nurses-aides, home-health-aides, teachers' aides, janitors/custodians, security-guards, salesclerks, landscape-laborers, warehouse-workers, assembly-line factory-workers, food-prep workers, etc. Most of these people earn minimum-wage, and most of them are in the same occupation (though not with the same employer), throughout their entire working careers. A few move up the ladder to become managers, but most remain unskilled laborers. They work hard, and hold down jobs that are just as necessary to the economy as any others. Through no fault of their own, they don't have the innate talent or intellect to move into higher-paying positions. Or sometimes, they live in locations where these are the only jobs available, and due to family circumstances, are unable to move away. The only raises they get are when the minimum-wage goes up, and Social Security is the only retirement system they'll ever know.

I n days past, they used to be able to make some progress by remaining with the same employer for their whole career, and thus were able to get step-raises and seniority, and get some pay-raises that way. But those days are long gone. Almost all employers now have periodic layoffs. They shed senior unskilled employees regularly (no matter how long or hard they've worked) and replace them with new entry-level unskilled employees, who'll receive a bit less pay. And the cycle repeats itself a few years later.

I know that out in the suburbs, many of the unskilled fast-food jobs, and landscaping jobs, are filled with teenagers, who'll only remain at these jobs for a short while, and will eventually move on to something better, as they acquire better skills. But in urban and rural areas, most of the people filling these jobs are middleaged, and the jobs that they're filling are the only ones that they'll ever be qualified to do. And for these people. they'll never be able to afford an I.R.A.. and Social Security will be their only form of retirement.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2010
4,272
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#30
Nobody should be retiring off a minimum wage job. Those positions are for unskilled work, nearly always entry level, requiring almost no real ability or work ethic. Any skill remotely of value means more than minimum wage. Minimum wage jobs are a job to do temporarily to pay the bills while looking for a better job. Those that can't get out of them are those who will have many other problems in life far beyond the ability to save for retirement, for them life will be extra hard because life is really tough for stupid people. Because someone who has to spend a life in minimum wage jobs is either very lazy or very stupid.

FYI, the working class includes people making ridiculously high hourly wages as skilled tradesman. it doesn't mean low wage earners, nor does it mean poor, it just means fixed pay. Anyone making a salary/wage is working class, to include white collar. A 20 year old trained as a welder can easily make $100,000/year for their first job. I know police officers who pull in over $200,000/year with overtime as patrolman (lowest rank), they're working class too, you think they're hurting?

If you're in your 30-40s and haven't invested in your own retirement, you deserve everything that happens to you. Bad decisions are supposed to have consequences, that's how responsibility works.
And not just skilled tradespeople. I was a fairly high earning attorney and my wife and I lived “paycheck to paycheck” most of my career. Fortunately, we had IRAs and 401K’s. Lots of lawyers, doctors, etc., in the same position. We all try to live like bigshots without having the income!

I remember driving around in the northern metro Atlanta area one day with another lawyer, and we couldn’t understand who could afford to buy all the homes that were going up. But buy them someone did.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions